Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

Karl Marx on economics

Why did marx believe communism would be an economically superior system to capitalism. What marxists say is irrelevant, what did marx himself say?

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.

well, i think at present i'm probably the one on these boards with the most experience reading marx first-hand. marx never used words like "superior." you have to realize, he had been a young hegelian, which means he believed history was moving irresistably toward a definite--and positive--"end." in fact, he referred to his system as hegelianism "turned rightway up."

capitalism was harmful because it was outmoded, obsolete, and dead. just like feudalism, it had been a necessary stage of history, and even beneficial to humanity in its time, but became harmful when artificially prolonged. for marx, the question wasn't if the worldwide socialist revolution would occur, but when. it was a historical inevitability.

also, we have to remember there would be an interval of socialism between capitalism and communism--socialism is a period of economy centralized in the state, and communism is after the state "withers away."

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen

Very good analysis. You represented it very well. However, I believe that Das Kapital was NOT written by Marx. Either Engel wrote the whole set and credited Marx with his work as a ghost writer, or another ghost writer was involved.

I need to do more research regarding this, but it doesn't seem that Marx actually wrote the core thesis of his work. I could be wrong but I doubt it.

But very good, Marx was Hegelian. In fact, Hegal really is the father of modern progressive thinking. Spinoza is somewhat also involved, but Hegel is the crux of Existentialism, Marxist Communism, psychology, etc.

Hegel is in torment as we speak and we a very evil man.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Well, I'm not sure if it was Marx or Engels who wrote that capitalism will destroy itself, because of Human greed (aristocrats) and their mansions full of luxury items and their fancy ways . As my Grandma used to say "putting on their airs" (show offs). It's funny to me that people say that "that's a Utopian way of seeing things" (socialism), Excuse me ! but the society that we live in (USA) was a utopian idea to begin with, WTF.

So, another words... a great deal of wishful thinking and classic self-deception. Desire almost never defines truth, but authors and 'social architects' like Marx apparently thought it would be enough.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)

Which dialect ? Mandarin or Cantonese and there is another one that I can't think of right now but its something like "Mia-Ping " ?, anyway , can you tell me, WTF is wrong with Beck's left eye ? it looks like he was punched there Ps. I have a Chinese - American dictionary, but I can't locate it right now, I've moved last July and got a lot of stuff still in boxes, but I need to find it for the Calligraphy in it, I do calligraphy, to (not that I can't now) focus even better.

Well, I'm not sure if it was Marx or Engels who wrote that capitalism will destroy itself, because of Human greed (aristocrats) and their mansions full of luxury items and their fancy ways . As my Grandma used to say "putting on their airs" (show offs). It's funny to me that people say that "that's a Utopian way of seeing things" (socialism), Excuse me ! but the society that we live in (USA) was a utopian idea to begin with, WTF.

What we're seeing is the opposite, the democratization of capitalism. Where everyone becomes a capitalist and a private business owner. With technology, all it takes to start and enterprise is a good idea and some work to make it happen. Like Michael Moore's film production enterpise, for example.

If everyone became a capitalist and every worker was a private contractors, wouldn't the workers own the means of production, the goal of the communists?

There are two ways to achieve a more equatable society, either make everyone independently self-sufficient or make everyone a slave of the state.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca

Well, I'm not sure if it was Marx or Engels who wrote that capitalism will destroy itself, because of Human greed (aristocrats) and their mansions full of luxury items and their fancy ways .

i don't recall that quote, but it could have been either of them. that sounds like the style of their "revolutionary" writings, which they openly admitted appealed to the emotions. speaking purely in terms of causality, neither marx nor engels would have asserted that anything as metaphysical as "greed" had anything to do with it. a marxist is not a compassionate crusader (or, at least, that's not what makes him or her a marxist): a marxist is merely someone who swims with the current of history rather than against it.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen

I find it funny for a fan of a dictator "rule by one" which god is(absolute power) has the nerve to comment on political economics.

FYI Jean, Stalin's socialism WAS NOT what Marx envisioned. Marx, had some good ideas that got bastardized by Stalin's power grab. MARX, suffered from the same utopia thinking YOU suffer from. Marx was nieve in that he didn't want to face that human nature can always lead to power grabs and that individuals wont always want the same things. MARX was wrong, but had good intent.

Life is not a script, it is a range, a variety, not something that can be compartmentalized or put into a box under a label.

THE MISTAKE is looking at economics as labels like "capitalism" and "socialism". ALL countries are Capitalistic. The Saudis capitalize on the sale of oil. But they are a fascist theocracy.

What Marx said was more Jeffersonion in attitude BUT failed to implement what the founders DID, in a way to prevent ALL forms of monopolies of power. Marx rightfully wanted more rights for the workers, but made the mistake of selling that as a blanket solution.

ANY FORM of blanket solution without a counter check on it WILL lead to a monopoly of power. This IS happening in the United States in the form of ONE class having a monopoly on both political parties, and creating more business monopolies that create corporate welfare at the expense of the other two classes.

The solution cannot be, strip society of private business. No, the solution is to implement the anti-trust laws upheld by the Supreme Court, AND the attitude of the First Amendment.

Fascism is not the result of a political party or a religion. Fascism can take hold in any system when there becomes no way to fight abuses of power.

I can find nothing more useful to foster fear and create a gang mentality than "my way or the highway" than the god of the bible. Here is a tyrant that will beat the shit out of you, even if your worst crime is simply not wanting to kiss his ass.

Fortunately for us the United States Constitution says "freedom of religion" and "No religious test" in it's oath of office.

Marx idea of "best of your ability according to your means" ALONE, by itself, is a nice idea. and is in line with "pursuit of happiness". The right wing in this country takes "pursuit of happiness" to mean only being absurdly wealthy. What they meant was, "do your own thing, be an individual"

Jefferson hated big banks and big industry. He did not hate private business ownership or wealth by itself. He hated abuse of power. And the bigger ANY entity gets, private business, or political party, the more the opportunity increases for exploitation or abuse.

Washington didn't like the party system. He said that it would make the politicians priorities selfish instead of being those of the governed.

The concept of the Constitution was not the absolute power of ANYONE, including the voter. Their idea was, sure, you voted to get whom you thought would do a good job, in, but their duty was not just to the people who voted them in. Once you were in office, your duty was to ALL the citizens, not just the people who voted for you.

The right wing has successfully revised history in selling the idea that God Guns, Bibles and Trump, are what the founders wanted.

NO, what they wanted was for us, as individuals, to decide for ourselves, what we wanted in our lives AS INDIVIDUALS.

"best of your ability, according to your means" sound a shitload like "be an individual".

Unfortunately Stalin did such a great job bastardizing this concept it has gotten a bad reputation.

I think if Marx and Jefferson were alive today, they both would SHOUT, "NO IT IS NOT EITHER OR, IT IS MERELY ANTI--MONOPOLY". I think both would be happy if we merely accepted that people are different and we all want different things.

Which is why I bitch so fucking much at the right when they falsely accuse me of hating wealth, when all I am bitching about is the pay gap and cost of living and health care CAUSED by the monopoly of power that the top 2% have on our political system.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

Well, I'm not sure if it was Marx or Engels who wrote that capitalism will destroy itself, because of Human greed (aristocrats) and their mansions full of luxury items and their fancy ways . As my Grandma used to say "putting on their airs" (show offs). It's funny to me that people say that "that's a Utopian way of seeing things" (socialism), Excuse me ! but the society that we live in (USA) was a utopian idea to begin with, WTF.

It is ironic (to us), and deeply frustrating, to dedicated Marxists, that so far, the major attempts at implementing some version of his theory have themselves collapsed (USSR) or adopted Authoritarian Capitalism (China). While Capitalism keeps marching on, with the occasional stumble.

Of course they will, like all True dogmatists, say that they weren't True Marxists.

Then when Capitalism has its periodic explosions - from the Great Depression to the GFC - dedicated Free-Marketers/Capitalists will say the same sort of thing. "It was too much Govt interference in the Market" ie not letting it "work".

Any dogmatic approach, ie not continually monitoring and correcting, with checks and balances, is eventually likely to explode or descend into an anarchic free-for-all or a dictatorship, given there will always be some people who are governed by human greed for Power and/or Wealth.

I figure that philosophers, economists, social scientists, all have Theory Envy, when they see the success of ever Grander Theories in the 'Hard' Sciences, especially Physics. Newton's Universal Gravitation, Einstein's Relativity, Quantum Mechanics...

The Theory of Evolution is nearly at the same level.

But in the inevitably 'fuzzier' areas, especially those involving human behaviour, it is all but impossible to sum up any aspect in a tidy, precise, equation,

I figure that philosophers, economists, social scientists, all have Theory Envy, when they see the success of ever Grander Theories in the 'Hard' Sciences, especially Physics. Newton's Universal Gravitation, Einstein's Relativity, Quantum Mechanics...

The Theory of Evolution is nearly at the same level.

But in the inevitably 'fuzzier' areas, especially those involving human behaviour, it is all but impossible to sum up any aspect in a tidy, precise, equation,

like E = mc2, or F = Gm1m2/d2.

But they keep trying...

They have contempt of anything that threatens their methods of making unilateral decisions, or judgments. Their whole methodology is to 'preach' and 'lecture'. It's not about 'dialogue'.

It's about asserting things without any impartial reasoning.

Period.

They claim the 'reasons' should be obvious...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris

Enemies are created, not because of differences, but because marketing trumps pragmatism.

There is no science to economics other than psychology and labels are the compartmental short cuts we use to bypass pragmatism because we fear losing power.

Ironically, the right wing business class wouldn't care what your beliefs are on the job as long as you can do the job. Right attitude, and I agree. But when it comes to politics, they market fear to maintain their monopoly of "only a this, or only a that, can do the job" when "No religious test" is in line with "best person for the job".

It seems funny that they have no problem with forgoing labels when they make money at the work place, but they will be damned if someone else takes credit for good ideas.

If " the best person for the job" is good enough for the work place, then it should be good enough for politics.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

ALL consistent atheists by definition hate capitalism and love Marxism. The reason is because Capitalism was systemized by the Christian Reformer John Calvin. If it wasn't for Calvin, Capitalism wouldn't be here. This is seen in the Columbia Encyclopedia 6th edition.

There's no such thing as an atheist Capitalist. All Atheists are evil immoral people. They want to destroy America.

Wow, Brian's against labels, how cute. He's a little Postmodern isn't he. If Brian doesn't like labels, then he cannot write in sentences. Since words (aka labels) capture the content of thought, then he must never speak, never write, and never fart since that would label him as one who stinks.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

One Who Loves Labels

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

ALL consistent atheists by definition hate capitalism and love Marxism. The reason is because Capitalism was systemized by the Christian Reformer John Calvin. If it wasn't for Calvin, Capitalism wouldn't be here.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Technically speaking according to the norm of today, you CANNOT prove ANYTHING. It is impossible.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

There's no such thing as an atheist Capitalist. All Atheists are evil immoral people. They want to destroy America.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Technically speaking according to the norm of today, you CANNOT prove ANYTHING. It is impossible.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

One Who Loves Labels

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Technically speaking according to the norm of today, you CANNOT prove ANYTHING. It is impossible.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris

Remember, you can't prove anything via the style of the court sytstem of atheism. Only a consistent Christian can prove anything via the right method of approach.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Wow, an atheist taking a Christian out of context. This has to be the first time in history this has ever happened. Perhaps you took me out of context since I kicked your butt so bad with our 2 debates. Your butt is bright red like Brian's face.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Kicking Atheist Butt One Butt At A Time

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

yes. and just in case you're wondering, anything i would possibly have to say on the topic--my interpretation of marxism, why i'm a marxist, answering objections to marxism, etc.--i've already said multiple times and won't bother to say again. just search the site.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

ALL consistent atheists by definition hate capitalism and love Marxism.

ok. rather than tell me that, i would advise you to tell EXC, BobSpence, BeyondSaving, Kapkao, or any number of others why they're either, a., marxists, or, b., not really atheists. i'm sure they'll be interested.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

The reason is because Capitalism was systemized by the Christian Reformer John Calvin. If it wasn't for Calvin, Capitalism wouldn't be here. This is seen in the Columbia Encyclopedia 6th edition.

yeah, that's max weber's idea, though i don't think he would have said calvin "systematized" capitalism. i would argue nobody's done that. maybe milton friedman came the closest. anyway, i personally think weber had the whole thing flipflopped, but i'm not invested in that enough to argue it.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

There's no such thing as an atheist Capitalist. All Atheists are evil immoral people. They want to destroy America.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen

ALL consistent atheists by definition hate capitalism and love Marxism. The reason is because Capitalism was systemized by the Christian Reformer John Calvin. If it wasn't for Calvin, Capitalism wouldn't be here. This is seen in the Columbia Encyclopedia 6th edition.

There's no such thing as an atheist Capitalist. All Atheists are evil immoral people. They want to destroy America.

Wow, Brian's against labels, how cute. He's a little Postmodern isn't he. If Brian doesn't like labels, then he cannot write in sentences. Since words (aka labels) capture the content of thought, then he must never speak, never write, and never fart since that would label him as one who stinks.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

One Who Loves Labels

None of us are Marxists, at least I am not. Germans still drive on the Autobaun that Hitler built. Does that mean modern Germany loves Hitler? China's government certainly isn't what we value in the west, but we have no problem buying the products they sell to us. And they do that quite effectively.

SOME of what Marx said, made sense, but his total package was a mistake and wrong. It didn't take into account human nature.

He suffered from the same "utopia" compartmentalization you suffer from. Life is a range, and humans are a range and there is NO one label that you can slap onto a government that will always represent every individual under that government.

WHICH IS WHY the founders of America ended up writing the Constitution which DID take into account that we are individuals.

You suffer from the same black and white thinking Marx suffered from, "If we just slap this simple solution onto a complex problem, everything will be ok" NOTHING in reality is ever black and white and economies and governments are NEVER as simple as the labels we slap on them.

THE ONLY thing I value that Marx said was, "the best of your ability according to your means". The rest of what he promoted which ended up being twisted by Stalin, was a mistake and WRONG! AGAIN, Marx failed to take into account POWER GRABS, which is what ended up happening.

China's government IS oppressive, but they do get some things right. They are kicking our ass economically and their population IS highly more educated on average. That does not mean I want to live there, it just means if we want to compete we could learn from them.

America does not have to become Stalin's Russia or Hitler's Germany, or China by looking at something effective they might be doing. THAT is how you compete.

Businesses in America do the same thing. They look at a competitor's product, come up with something similar, but that does not make them the same company because they make the same types of products.

IF America, especially in WW2 did not care about what Japan or Germany were doing as far as inventing weapons, and didn't learn from them, we would have lost that war.

It is why we were able to beat Russia to nukes. If Russia had beat us to that the world would look completely different today.

Your shallow thinking is so painfully obvious and is a product of your own black and white fictional god. I ment doG.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

The key word here is CONSISTENT. A consistent atheist is a marxist. Thus all those atheists are inconsistent as a consequent.

But it's fun to meet a real traitor to this great country. It's the kind of enemies like you that are trying to destroy America's values, and bankrupt our country so that way you can restart it via Communism.

Robert Reich in his book on Reason (2004) he defines himself as a classical liberal though speaks in terms of Marxism. This is absurd and contradicts things. A classical liberal was like I am now, one who is a Capitalist and wants small government.

Life, Liberty and the pursuite of happiness came from the French Revolutionary war. Forgot where I was going there.

So, as an evil enemy of America, are you here in America to try to destroy it from the inside? What things are you doing as an evil traitor that ought to be hanged to destroy this great land? The Bible hints that you traitors will win.

But, even though you are every good man's enemy, and you hate goodness, freedom, values, right, wrong, ethics, I'd still love to have a beer with ya.

Though my traitor friend, your place in hell will be hotter then most. And when your side wins the battle for a little while, I'm sure you're be first in line to hunt down the Christians to murder them you worthless piece of garbage.

Though I speak out of respect.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

The key word here is CONSISTENT. A consistent atheist is a marxist. Thus all those atheists are inconsistent as a consequent.

But it's fun to meet a real traitor to this great country. It's the kind of enemies like you that are trying to destroy America's values, and bankrupt our country so that way you can restart it via Communism.

Robert Reich in his book on Reason (2004) he defines himself as a classical liberal though speaks in terms of Marxism. This is absurd and contradicts things. A classical liberal was like I am now, one who is a Capitalist and wants small government.

Life, Liberty and the pursuite of happiness came from the French Revolutionary war. Forgot where I was going there.

So, as an evil enemy of America, are you here in America to try to destroy it from the inside? What things are you doing as an evil traitor that ought to be hanged to destroy this great land? The Bible hints that you traitors will win.

But, even though you are every good man's enemy, and you hate goodness, freedom, values, right, wrong, ethics, I'd still love to have a beer with ya.

Though my traitor friend, your place in hell will be hotter then most. And when your side wins the battle for a little while, I'm sure you're be first in line to hunt down the Christians to murder them you worthless piece of garbage.

Though I speak out of respect.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

I do hate the fact that people like you still spew bullshit like this in a pluralistic country. If you had your way our government would put a gun to my head and force me to swear an oath to your god.

I guess the founders fucked up with the First Amendment that says I don't have to believe what you believe. It also DOES NOT demand an oath to Jesus via "NO RELIGIOUS TEST" Go read the United States Constitution.

Wanna hear what Jefferson said about religion and your precious Jesus?

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.

Letter to John Adams April 11 1823

Here's another from Jefferson,

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.

Letter to Frances Adrian van Der Kemp, July 30th 1816

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must approve the homage of reason rather than of blind-folded fear. Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences....IF IT END IN A BELIEF THAT THERE IS NO GOD, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others it will procure for you.

Letter to Peter Carr, August 10th 1787

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such thing exists.

Letter to Thomas Law, June 13th, 1814

AND HERE IS A LAW SIGNED BY CONGRESS WITHOUT DISSENT,

It's common name is The Treaty of Tripoli, called the Barbary Treaty

Article 11 wrote:

As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion

Singed June 10th 1797 by President John Adams

They were for freedom of religion, not a Christian theocracy.

Do your homework before you spew such stupid shit.

--

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

The key word here is CONSISTENT. A consistent atheist is a marxist. Thus all those atheists are inconsistent as a consequent.

But it's fun to meet a real traitor to this great country. It's the kind of enemies like you that are trying to destroy America's values, and bankrupt our country so that way you can restart it via Communism.

Robert Reich in his book on Reason (2004) he defines himself as a classical liberal though speaks in terms of Marxism. This is absurd and contradicts things. A classical liberal was like I am now, one who is a Capitalist and wants small government.

Life, Liberty and the pursuite of happiness came from the French Revolutionary war. Forgot where I was going there.

So, as an evil enemy of America, are you here in America to try to destroy it from the inside? What things are you doing as an evil traitor that ought to be hanged to destroy this great land? The Bible hints that you traitors will win.

But, even though you are every good man's enemy, and you hate goodness, freedom, values, right, wrong, ethics, I'd still love to have a beer with ya.

Though my traitor friend, your place in hell will be hotter then most. And when your side wins the battle for a little while, I'm sure you're be first in line to hunt down the Christians to murder them you worthless piece of garbage.

Though I speak out of respect.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

charmed, i'm sure.

and i've lived in slovakia for 7 years now, where i teach high school english. at a lutheran school, no less. so no, not trying to destroy anything from within. except perhaps my liver.

boo.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen

If others here can stomach the site of you without vomiting, kudos to them. I'd rather staple my nuts to the wall than ever met you face to face.

None of the Christians I work with, nor my Mother who does believe, would ever say some of the assholish bigoted crap you have said on this website.

I find you sick and vile and nothing but a brat.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

My former boss was a Professor Ph.D in Slavonic languages. I do find the Slavonic chants very interesting.

Hey Brian, I love you too.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

It is ironic (to us), and deeply frustrating, to dedicated Marxists, that so far, the major attempts at implementing some version of his theory have themselves collapsed (USSR) or adopted Authoritarian Capitalism (China). While Capitalism keeps marching on, with the occasional stumble.

Of course they will, like all True dogmatists, say that they weren't True Marxists.

Then when Capitalism has its periodic explosions - from the Great Depression to the GFC - dedicated Free-Marketers/Capitalists will say the same sort of thing. "It was too much Govt interference in the Market" ie not letting it "work".

Tidbit of info for the curious. Saipan was literally a deregulated free market "experiment" in the late 80's early 90's. Set upon by fervent capitalists out to prove the superiority of a free market over a regulated one by exploiting a loophole in the governance of the Marianas'. (see Jack Abramoff, Tom De Lay)

The USSR is often cited as a failed example of communism/socialism in practice, but the, quite consummate, disaster state that 'lassez faire' championing left to Saipan is the lesser known member of the 'failed ideology' family.

ALL consistent atheists by definition hate capitalism and love Marxism.

Sounds more like all bible believing Christians should be Communists. The Holy Spirit and Saint Peter sound like communist party bosses:

The Believers Share Their Possessions

32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

Ananias and Sapphira

1 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2 With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.

3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

5 When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6 Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.

7 About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”

“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”

9 Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”

10 At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca

Tidbit of info for the curious. Saipan was literally a deregulated free market "experiment" in the late 80's early 90's. Set upon by fervent capitalists out to prove the superiority of a free market over a regulated one by exploiting a loophole in the governance of the Marianas'. (see Jack Abramoff, Tom De Lay)

Yet workers kept coming no matter how bad were the wages and working conditions. An oversupply of unskilled for China and the Philippines, so it was not a petri dish for capitalism. The problems with poverty in these countries were exported to Saipan. Also, the capitalism is going to attract thieves for the same reason banks do, that's were the money is.

The basic problem though is overpopulation. Any economic system is going to have poverty because this is how humans still do population control. The Communists are going to say poverty is problem with Capitalism and visa versa. All the while ignoring the rules of Malthus. The mistake people make is to believe economics are separate from the rest of society.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca

Tidbit of info for the curious. Saipan was literally a deregulated free market "experiment" in the late 80's early 90's. Set upon by fervent capitalists out to prove the superiority of a free market over a regulated one by exploiting a loophole in the governance of the Marianas'. (see Jack Abramoff, Tom De Lay)

Yet workers kept coming no matter how bad were the wages and working conditions.

Well no, the wages weren't bad, actually. Not for them, anyway, to these people the earning potential was very promising. The problem was that they became indentured via their travel costs (which were somewhat inflated) and thus never saw the wage they were promised.

The working conditions were pretty appalling, 7 day working weeks and the opportunity to curl up on a bench in the sun with an empty belly between shifts, not very humane.

But, I'd wonder why any capitalist would bring that up, given it is extremely profitable, and when the 'profit motive' is to be hailed as saviour of humanity from the great selfish unforgiving beastie that is the world of nature according to capitalism, surely, it's positively saintly practice, right?

Well no, the wages weren't bad, actually. Not for them, anyway, to these people the earning potential was very promising. The problem was that they became indentured via their travel costs (which were somewhat inflated) and thus never saw the wage they were promised.

The working conditions were pretty appalling, 7 day working weeks and the opportunity to curl up on a bench in the sun with an empty belly between shifts, not very humane.

But, I'd wonder why any capitalist would bring that up, given it is extremely profitable, and when the 'profit motive' is to be hailed as saviour of humanity from the great selfish unforgiving beastie that is the world of nature according to capitalism, surely, it's positively saintly practice, right?

What you fail to mention is that workers sent much of their money back home. So this is an example of where capitalism worked because otherwise the families back home would have starved, right? So I would say it's inhumane to not support mandatory family planning.

Wages for unskilled labor in a capitalist system will be set a level that enables the survival of the worker and his children, no higher. But that is better than the alternative.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca

Saipan is/was hardly laissez-faire. Laissez-faire capitalism requires that the workers be allowed to purchase property and invest in new ventures if they have the money to do so. Saipan (and all of CNMI) have laws that make it difficult for foreigners to be owners and also for immigrants to become full citizens. The majority of the workers couldn't become citizens so had no chance to invest in a business, even if they did have enough cash. Their system is really closer to being feudal than laissez-faire capitalist.

Laissez-faire capitalism requires two things, a policy of non-interference from the government AND individual ownership rights. Saipan had the former to some extent, but did not have the latter. Without individual ownership rights you miss out on the innovation and competition that drives a free market economy. The whole theory of laissez-faire rests on the worker having incentive to come up with new and better ideas because they can be rewarded financially for them. If you can't own property, you don't get the reward, you have no reason to innovate.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

Saipan is/was hardly laissez-faire. Laissez-faire capitalism requires that the workers be allowed to purchase property and invest in new ventures if they have the money to do so. Saipan (and all of CNMI) have laws that make it difficult for foreigners to be owners and also for immigrants to become full citizens. The majority of the workers couldn't become citizens so had no chance to invest in a business, even if they did have enough cash. Their system is really closer to being feudal than laissez-faire capitalist.

Laissez-faire capitalism requires two things, a policy of non-interference from the government AND individual ownership rights. Saipan had the former to some extent, but did not have the latter. Without individual ownership rights you miss out on the innovation and competition that drives a free market economy. The whole theory of laissez-faire rests on the worker having incentive to come up with new and better ideas because they can be rewarded financially for them. If you can't own property, you don't get the reward, you have no reason to innovate.

In many ways this is similiar to the Mexican illigal immigration in the USA. The anglo society took the southwest from the Mexicans(who took it from the native Americans), thanks to having superior guns. The land owners have an extreme advantage in this situation. Since their is limited land and water, they have no choice but to work for corporate farms. The most innovate and hardest working don't get the most. The society that builds the best weapons for war wins.

So that is why the communist are correct in saying the land and other resources needs to be shared. But they are wrong in saying fruits of an individual's labor needs to be shared or the profits from a risky investment need to be shared.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca

Saipan is/was hardly laissez-faire. Laissez-faire capitalism requires that the workers be allowed to purchase property and invest in new ventures if they have the money to do so. Saipan (and all of CNMI) have laws that make it difficult for foreigners to be owners and also for immigrants to become full citizens. The majority of the workers couldn't become citizens so had no chance to invest in a business, even if they did have enough cash. Their system is really closer to being feudal than laissez-faire capitalist.

Laissez-faire capitalism requires two things, a policy of non-interference from the government AND individual ownership rights. Saipan had the former to some extent, but did not have the latter. Without individual ownership rights you miss out on the innovation and competition that drives a free market economy. The whole theory of laissez-faire rests on the worker having incentive to come up with new and better ideas because they can be rewarded financially for them. If you can't own property, you don't get the reward, you have no reason to innovate.

In many ways this is similiar to the Mexican illigal immigration in the USA. The anglo society took the southwest from the Mexicans(who took it from the native Americans), thanks to having superior guns. The land owners have an extreme advantage in this situation. Since their is limited land and water, they have no choice but to work for corporate farms. The most innovate and hardest working don't get the most. The society that builds the best weapons for war wins.

So that is why the communist are correct in saying the land and other resources needs to be shared. But they are wrong in saying fruits of an individual's labor needs to be shared or the profits from a risky investment need to be shared.

fruits of an individual's labor are shared all the time, otherwise we'd have no manufacturing. i think what you really mean is returns from an idiviual's capital should not be shared. one may purchase a certain amount of labor with capital, and that labor may produce, but capital does not equal labor (indeed, labor surpasses capital to produce surplus value, otherwise the capitalist wouldn't bother to begin with), nor can the capitalist call that product the fruits of his labor.

one doesn't even have to go to marx for these concepts. david ricardo set them down half a century earlier and, unlike marx, his work still remains a go-to in modern free market economics.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen

Yes, there are some similarities. Illegal Mexican immigrants don't have a chance to fully participate in our free market, although, it is much easier to immigrate to the US than CNMI, or to buy land/business as a foreigner.

EXC wrote:

The most innovate and hardest working don't get the most. The society that builds the best weapons for war wins.

Isn't there a direct correlation between the society that is the most innovative and the one that has the best weapons?

EXC wrote:

So that is why the communist are correct in saying the land and other resources needs to be shared. But they are wrong in saying fruits of an individual's labor needs to be shared or the profits from a risky investment need to be shared.

And how exactly do you share land? I have a nice cabin that overlooks a beautiful valley. Only one person can live here, although I can imagine there are other people who would love to live here. When two people want to live on the same piece of land, you have to have some method to determine who can live there. Same thing with businesses. Two businesses cannot occupy the same location, using the same physical space, even though some locations are clearly better than others. I think money is a far better solution than violence, although either one works.

As for sharing resources, I can see the necessity of sharing if a necessary resource is scarce to the point that more cannot be created. However, in the US we do not have that problem. We have more than enough resources with no reason to believe that situation is going to change in the near future. The only resource that has even a remote possibility of becoming scarce is oil, but we have options to resolve that situation if and when it comes.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

fruits of an individual's labor are shared all the time, otherwise we'd have no manufacturing. i think what you really mean is returns from an idiviual's capital should not be shared.

I one makes a shirt with his own labor, he can keep the shirt for his own pleasure, trade it for something of equal value or the government can take in the name of the common good. Seems like only the latter is it a forced 'sharing'.

iwbiek wrote:

one may purchase a certain amount of labor with capital, and that labor may produce, but capital does not equal labor (indeed, labor surpasses capital to produce surplus value, otherwise the capitalist wouldn't bother to begin with), nor can the capitalist call that product the fruits of his labor.

In some cases where there is research and management it is the fruit of their labor. In many cases the payoff is the fruit of his risk.

If the capitalist didn't add any value, the laborers could just sell directly to the consumer. The capitalist is just a middleman that must compete for laborers and customers. If his profits are excessive, another capitalist can come into the market and take away his workers and his customers.

Blaming the capitalist for low wages and high prices is like blaming the gas station owner because you can't afford to fill up. He's just a middleman, the problem is too much demand, too little supply. If you're going to have government intervention in the market, it seems like it ought to be attacking these problems directly.

The capitalists in Saipan didn't create a poverty/overpopulation problem in the Philippines. It was there for a long time.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca

fruits of an individual's labor are shared all the time, otherwise we'd have no manufacturing. i think what you really mean is returns from an idiviual's capital should not be shared.

I one makes a shirt with his own labor, he can keep the shirt for his own pleasure, trade it for something of equal value or the government can take in the name of the common good. Seems like only the latter is it a forced 'sharing'.

iwbiek wrote:

one may purchase a certain amount of labor with capital, and that labor may produce, but capital does not equal labor (indeed, labor surpasses capital to produce surplus value, otherwise the capitalist wouldn't bother to begin with), nor can the capitalist call that product the fruits of his labor.

In some cases where there is research and management it is the fruit of their labor. In many cases the payoff is the fruit of his risk.

If the capitalist didn't add any value, the laborers could just sell directly to the consumer. The capitalist is just a middleman that must compete for laborers and customers. If his profits are excessive, another capitalist can come into the market and take away his workers and his customers.

Blaming the capitalist for low wages and high prices is like blaming the gas station owner because you can't afford to fill up. He's just a middleman, the problem is too much demand, too little supply. If you're going to have government intervention in the market, it seems like it ought to be attacking these problems directly.

The capitalists in Saipan didn't create a poverty/overpopulation problem in the Philippines. It was there for a long time.

"Capitalism" IS NOT A FORM OF GOVERNMENT!

The Saudi Royal family is not poor, otherwise they wouldnt be in power. How do you think they make their money? THROUGH CAPITALIZING OFF THE SALE OF OIL.

You want to make this as simple as "supply and demand", and in a healthy oversight checked market, I would agree. But when those at the top pay off both parties to look the other way to allow for a casino "no rules" market, it is no longer a "supply and demand" market, but a rigged market where they bet on both sides of the fence and make money EVEN when they lose and then dump the loses on the tax payers.

Without watchdogs and speed limits and oversight ANY system can become abusive.

If things continue the way they are going, America WILL be able to compete with India and China. And the cost of that will be slave labor and no middle class.

America's current climate is privatized profits and socialized loses. It is based on corporate monopolies and corporate welfare.

No one should be against an open market. But you are dead wrong that we have a consumer driven market. The competition is no longer at the user level. It is an artificial market based on over conflated prices driven by making profits bigger.

MONOPOLIES of power are the issue. And we have far too many at the top paying off both parties to pick our pockets.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

You want to make this as simple as "supply and demand", and in a healthy oversight checked market, I would agree. But when those at the top pay off both parties to look the other way to allow for a casino "no rules" market, it is no longer a "supply and demand" market, but a rigged market where they bet on both sides of the fence and make money EVEN when they lose and then dump the loses on the tax payers.

Without watchdogs and speed limits and oversight ANY system can become abusive.

It is precisely that "oversight" that led to the taxpayers bailing out corporations that should have gone bankrupt. It is that "oversight" that has led to GE paying $0 in taxes on $5 billion in profit while their competitors pay 35%. Sucking Bama's cock is profitable. Making money in our country through political connections has become more profitable than producing what consumers demand, and it is precisely the fault of government regulations that single out particular companies and industries.

Brian37 wrote:

America's current climate is privatized profits and socialized loses. It is based on corporate monopolies and corporate welfare.

Brought to you by those who crow about the need of more regulation... I agree, there should be a wall of separation between government and business. Without government assistance in the form of regulation and tax code there would be no monopolies. And we can certainly throw corporate welfare out the window. Government bailing out companies is about as socialist as you can get. We should get rid of the socialized losses and keep the privatized profits.

Brian37 wrote:

No one should be against an open market. But you are dead wrong that we have a consumer driven market. The competition is no longer at the user level. It is an artificial market based on over conflated prices driven by making profits bigger.

Wrong. Inflated prices and inflated demand have been directly caused by the federal reserve. They have been printing money with the GOAL of causing inflation. I wrote a post on this some months ago warning that inflation was going to get worse because of QE2. Our government still insists that inflation isn't a problem and only recently admitted that it was going on at all. That idiot (criminal?) Ben Bernanke said that the inflation was minimal and temporary and solely the result of the problems in the Middle East. He is either a complete incompetent or a liar. Either one is scary in the man who has more power over our economy than any other person.

We haven't even realized the full extent of the inflation that is occurring yet. Many companies have been absorbing the higher costs of raw materials, but eventually those costs will be passed down to the consumer. By the end of this year, everything you buy is going to be more expensive. It is a direct result of QE2 and our governments irresponsible spending. It is predictable and avoidable, yet our government continues to listen to "economists" who are repeatedly wrong about their predictions. (Remember how the stimulus was supposed to create so many jobs? Have you seen the unemployment rate?)

Unless people wake up and force our government to change, things are going to get real ugly as high prices without rising income will cause things to get tight for people, who will then go to the government for aid, which will lead to spending more money we don't have, leading to more inflation. We are going to have to go through some of the same austerity measures that they are attempting all over Europe. We would be better off doing it sooner rather than later, because no one in the world has enough money to bail us out.

The fed has also kept interest rates well below market levels which has the effect of making it cheap to borrow money. When it is cheap to borrow money, consumers will purchase more than they can afford. It kept our economy booming for awhile but now, even the lure of cheap money can't get people to spend more. Don't blame companies. The government has far more control over the value of the dollar than they do.

Brian37 wrote:

MONOPOLIES of power are the issue. And we have far too many at the top paying off both parties to pick our pockets

Then take away the power at the top.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

The Saudi Royal family is not poor, otherwise they wouldnt be in power. How do you think they make their money? THROUGH CAPITALIZING OFF THE SALE OF OIL.

I would say they made their money off of ownership of a natural resource. Which is why I agree with communists on this point, no one has a right to own any part of the earth. Everyone should enjoy the benefits of a resource in exchange for responsible social behavior.

Brian37 wrote:

You want to make this as simple as "supply and demand", and in a healthy oversight checked market, I would agree. But when those at the top pay off both parties to look the other way to allow for a casino "no rules" market, it is no longer a "supply and demand" market, but a rigged market where they bet on both sides of the fence and make money EVEN when they lose and then dump the loses on the tax payers.

Without watchdogs and speed limits and oversight ANY system can become abusive.

If things continue the way they are going, America WILL be able to compete with India and China. And the cost of that will be slave labor and no middle class.

America's current climate is privatized profits and socialized loses. It is based on corporate monopolies and corporate welfare.

I agree, that is why the government has to get out of business of insuring losses, pensions and the banking business.

We supposedly had wathdogs looking for cheaters, but what incentive did they have to expose a Bernie Madoff. None because it was done by government employees that have no incentive.

We should get rid of the concept of taxation, and make everything a user fee.

Brian37 wrote:

No one should be against an open market. But you are dead wrong that we have a consumer driven market. The competition is no longer at the user level. It is an artificial market based on over conflated prices driven by making profits bigger.

MONOPOLIES of power are the issue. And we have far too many at the top paying off both parties to pick our pockets.

Because we have one giant monopoly at the top called government running all businesses like banking, pensions, education, etc...

Why do they need to run any enterprise? Just enable people to make contracts and enforce the rules of these contracts. Why does government need to do anything else?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca

I would say they made their money off of ownership of a natural resource. Which is why I agree with communists on this point, no one has a right to own any part of the earth. Everyone should enjoy the benefits of a resource in exchange for responsible social behavior.

Will you please get off of labels.

Humans should not have a monopoly on resources, but it is absurd to ignore private property rights. You cloths are your private property as well. Your family pictures are your private property. Every human has some extent of claiming objects as personal property. It is absurd to say we should never own anything.

Monopolies of power are the problem, whatever label that monopoly holds. In America the monopoly is held currently by one class. The monopoly is held by the Saudi Royal family via monopoly of resources.

It is true that no one owns the planet and we DO need to start thinking that way as a species. But you'd have to kill me to try to take my home ownership away from me and hand it over to my government.

It is NOT either or, and labels are a bullshit distraction away from human nature.

WE ARE BOTH greedy and empathetic as a species, NOT EITHER OR, but both. So any form of government has to allow BOTH range of actions to exist by making oversight the norm as a check on BOTH greed and social issues.

I would not want a government run economy, but at the same time I do not like the no rules attitude corporate America has.

I think you give the label "communist" too much credit and I am damned sure you wouldn't like living in states like China or North Korea and their oppression of dissent.

AND China is just as much a exploiter of the planet as America.

Human emotions and actions are a range, not an absolute. Labels are a distraction away from the full range of these natural displays we have evolved to have. You can not slap a label onto a complex species as a utopia answer.

"If we just do it this way" is a utopia on a planet of 7 billion. Problem solving is not label based, but taking seeking pragmatic steps of overlap while maximizing individuality. In short, there is no utopia word to global issues. There are only REAL problems that humans have that transcend labels, such as jobs, housing, disease, crime, and resources.

Isms are bullshit, and have done nothing but serve to divide humanity.

I think in some ways because of social networking and global media, more people are getting wise to the needless divisions governments create to support their superficial gang mentalities.

There is no absolute "right answer" to humanity's problems other than a "better goal" of the dignity of the individual.

Life is not a mystery or a label. Life is all about gaining resources and to use labels as utopia short cuts to problem solving is what is holding us back as a species.

Westernized open markets AND even China are CAPITALISTIC, so the issue is not property rights or ownership of resources, the problem is monopolies of power and environmental short sightedness.

Money equals power and no matter what form of government you set up, if the money has no check on it the abuse is unchecked. China is as abusive to the planet as America is.

I do think big oil needs to be broken up and needs more regulation. I do think there needs to be a mandate in America, just like seat belts are now mandatory, to stop selling Hummers and gas hogs, and mandate hybrids and electric cars. But no, I do not want to rid the world of all big business. Just rid the world of monopolies based on money. Just like China's communist oppressive government wouldn't have power if it didn't have money.

MONOPOLIES OF POWER are the issue, not labels.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

But you'd have to kill me to try to take my home ownership away from me and hand it over to my government.

Are you dead? You don't own your home. You are simply renting it from the government. Don't believe me? See what happens when you don't pay your property tax.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

The Saudi Royal family is not poor, otherwise they wouldnt be in power. How do you think they make their money? THROUGH CAPITALIZING OFF THE SALE OF OIL.

I would say they made their money off of ownership of a natural resource. Which is why I agree with communists on this point, no one has a right to own any part of the earth. Everyone should enjoy the benefits of a resource in exchange for responsible social behavior.

Brian37 wrote:

You want to make this as simple as "supply and demand", and in a healthy oversight checked market, I would agree. But when those at the top pay off both parties to look the other way to allow for a casino "no rules" market, it is no longer a "supply and demand" market, but a rigged market where they bet on both sides of the fence and make money EVEN when they lose and then dump the loses on the tax payers.

Without watchdogs and speed limits and oversight ANY system can become abusive.

If things continue the way they are going, America WILL be able to compete with India and China. And the cost of that will be slave labor and no middle class.

America's current climate is privatized profits and socialized loses. It is based on corporate monopolies and corporate welfare.

I agree, that is why the government has to get out of business of insuring losses, pensions and the banking business.

We supposedly had wathdogs looking for cheaters, but what incentive did they have to expose a Bernie Madoff. None because it was done by government employees that have no incentive.

We should get rid of the concept of taxation, and make everything a user fee.

Brian37 wrote:

No one should be against an open market. But you are dead wrong that we have a consumer driven market. The competition is no longer at the user level. It is an artificial market based on over conflated prices driven by making profits bigger.

MONOPOLIES of power are the issue. And we have far too many at the top paying off both parties to pick our pockets.

Because we have one giant monopoly at the top called government running all businesses like banking, pensions, education, etc...

Why do they need to run any enterprise? Just enable people to make contracts and enforce the rules of these contracts. Why does government need to do anything else?

Wisky Tango Foxtrot?

You want to live in a country with no government Somalia would be a great place for you, well, only if you have money.

No, the government is not running anything, it is bought off by the wealthest 2% and because of that the corruption exists. If you buy government you can put the people in it whom look the other way.

So you don't want a public heath inspector checking the food joints you eat at? You are going to blindly trust every business owner to do the right thing all the time?

That is foolish.

I want my government making sure business isn't ripping people off. I want them to make sure workers have a safe work environment. I want them to make sure my food is safe. I want them to not just protect money makers, but all classes.

If it were not for government mandates of seat belts car companies wouldn't have put them in. It was because government stepped in cars got safer.

It is not an either or proposition. You are living in a utopia. You cannot have a government that simply enforces contracts. You have to have entities that oversee that laws are being obeyed outside those contracts. Otherwise what you are doing is allowing money to dictate how the contracts are written and limiting the chose of the consumer who most of the time, doesn't have the time OR money to hire lawyers to fight any wrong the contract writer might inflict on them.

AND there are laws that cover unwritten contracts, such as merely entering a private business. If you go into that store, you do not sign a contract. The store is built to building codes that society agrees on before it is built to PROTECT the safety of those who enter without singing a contract. So the laws are the contract. And you need government officials to check those building codes before you enter. Otherwise, if left to their own devices anyone could build anything the way they want and the consumer would have no protection.

If you want to argue over regulation, that would be a better tactic. But in our current climate, if those who want less regulation, they have done NOTHING to show that they are doing the right thing on their own . They should not bitch, after they fuck up and dump their mess on tax payers, and then complain about government stepping in.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

But you'd have to kill me to try to take my home ownership away from me and hand it over to my government.

Are you dead? You don't own your home. You are simply renting it from the government. Don't believe me? See what happens when you don't pay your property tax.

I DO own my property. The fact that humans expect others to pay their share is merely a social contract. Yes I would expect them to do that. You cant live in a tax free world. That is called ANARCHY. You achieve a tax free world and all you will have is a totalitarian state ruled by the wealth. And if that happened, those with the wealth wouldn't even wait for you to pay them anything, they would simply take it whenever they wanted. No different than the dark ages where the kings took whatever they wanted.

At least this way you cant simply have your property taken without reason. I have to pay my property tax to pay for things like the fire department and police and roads and water. Do you think I shouldn't pay for that? If you don't think I should pay property tax, then you can pay mine for me. How generous of you.

No taxes no rules is a utopia that will never exist, especially in a civil society.

You have bought into a script and life is never as simple as "do this" and everything will be ok.

ANY SYSTEM OR POLITICAL PARTY OR RELIGION OR CLASS, when left with no oversight or check on it will lead to abuse. Having taxes by itself is not abuse.

Come up with another argument other than "taxes always bad". Goverment waste is a better argument, but one politicians waste is another's boon. I think it is a waste to taxpayers in NJ who are still paying for a stadium that is now a parking lot. I think two wars which haven't produced much in progress for those countries was a waste. I think the deregulation of Wall Street has caused massive damage to our economy.

I don't mind paying my taxes, if we didn't have them, we wouldnt have seat belt laws because we wouldn't have anyway to pay the salaries of the law makers who mandated them. I think we are better off because of those laws. I think we are better off because we pay police and firemen.

Stop blaming the middle class and poor for the bad behavior of the rich. Paying taxes sucks, no one likes to do it. SO WHAT? They are still needed otherwise what will happen is that you end up with Somalia where only those with wealth have power BECAUSE OF NO CHECKS AND BALANCES ON POWER BECAUSE OF MONEY.

There is more than one class in our country and I am tired of the old FAUX NEWS talking points that only those who have should have any say.

That merely amounts to "might makes right".

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

But you'd have to kill me to try to take my home ownership away from me and hand it over to my government.

Are you dead? You don't own your home. You are simply renting it from the government. Don't believe me? See what happens when you don't pay your property tax.

I DO own my property. The fact that humans expect others to pay their share is merely a social contract. Yes I would expect them to do that. You cant live in a tax free world. That is called ANARCHY. You achieve a tax free world and all you will have is a totalitarian state ruled by the wealth. And if that happened, those with the wealth wouldn't even wait for you to pay them anything, they would simply take it whenever they wanted. No different than the dark ages where the kings took whatever they wanted.

At least this way you cant simply have your property taken without reason. I have to pay my property tax to pay for things like the fire department and police and roads and water. Do you think I shouldn't pay for that? If you don't think I should pay property tax, then you can pay mine for me. How generous of you.

No taxes no rules is a utopia that will never exist, especially in a civil society.

You have bought into a script and life is never as simple as "do this" and everything will be ok.

ANY SYSTEM OR POLITICAL PARTY OR RELIGION OR CLASS, when left with no oversight or check on it will lead to abuse. Having taxes by itself is not abuse.

Come up with another argument other than "taxes always bad". Goverment waste is a better argument, but one politicians waste is another's boon. I think it is a waste to taxpayers in NJ who are still paying for a stadium that is now a parking lot. I think two wars which haven't produced much in progress for those countries was a waste. I think the deregulation of Wall Street has caused massive damage to our economy.

I don't mind paying my taxes, if we didn't have them, we wouldnt have seat belt laws because we wouldn't have anyway to pay the salaries of the law makers who mandated them. I think we are better off because of those laws. I think we are better off because we pay police and firemen.

Stop blaming the middle class and poor for the bad behavior of the rich. Paying taxes sucks, no one likes to do it. SO WHAT? They are still needed otherwise what will happen is that you end up with Somalia where only those with wealth have power BECAUSE OF NO CHECKS AND BALANCES ON POWER BECAUSE OF MONEY.

There is more than one class in our country and I am tired of the old FAUX NEWS talking points that only those who have should have any say.

That merely amounts to "might makes right".

I wasn't arguing that taxes are always bad (although, most of them are). I was simply pointing out that you don't own your house. If you decided to quit your job and didn't have enough money to pay property taxes, you would be evicted. It is no different than when any other landlord evicts you. Ownership implies that no one can take it away from you. The government can, and does. So I have a particular problem with property taxes- even a larger one than I have for income taxes. Especially since property taxes are based on the current value of the property rather than the value of it when it was purchased.

I have seen people forced out of their homes because rich people decided to build mansions around them and increased the value to the point that they couldn't afford their homes. Their property taxes go up from a manageable $1000 a year to $3000 or $4000 - most of which does NOT go towards police, firemen, roads or water. The majority of it goes to the schools. And in most counties a wide range of BS programs. The result is usually that the taxes get so high the people who live there sell their house (usually at well below market value) and move to a poorer area. But sometimes, you get the grandma who refuses to move, can't pay the bill and gets evicted by the sheriff. I don't think it is right to force people from homes they supposedly own by increasing taxes to a point that they can't afford them. There is a better way to pay for the necessities.

Then of course there are cases where the government simply takes your property away, because they decide there is a better purpose for it. (See Kelo v. New London 545 U.S. 469 (2005) where houses were taken from people to build a Pfizer plant- which was never built, the houses were destroyed) Sure, they toss you a few dollars, whatever the government determines is "just compensation", but the fact remains, you do not own your house. At the end of the day, it is owned by the government and you are a renter.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

You don't own your home. You are simply renting it from the government. Don't believe me? See what happens when you don't pay your property tax.

So true. Once the government puts you on a leash there's no turning back. Private property ? You don't own anything ....they own you.

If you get rid of personal property tax and shift it under another colomn then if those people dont pay that tax they get something taken from them or they go to jail. So any way you slice it the government will tax something and if you dont pay or you cheat on it, you go to jail.

"No taxation without representation" does not mean "no taxes".

AND if you really want to get esoteric we don't own anything in reality, we merely use things while we are alive since nothing lasts forever.

I am fine with property tax. I am not fine with some of the laws outside tax that big business can now use to force your off your property for their own use.

And you are acting as if the IRS will kick you off your land if you are a penny short or a day late. No, if you know you are going to be short, you can try to get them to reduce it, or make a long term payment plan. IRS agents are not boogiemen and exist under BOTH republican and democrat presidents. They are merely humans enforcing the laws WE as a society set up.

I would say if you want to get rid of all personal property tax, where would you shift the income from that. Reducing taxes isn't the only thing you can do. Less income, less police. Less road care, less firemen.

You cant simply get rid of all taxes.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37